Iain Duncan Smith accuses Labour of changing the rules on NI policy and shoddiness in its treatment of Mr Trimble, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
The world may be paying little notice as yet but something significant seems to have occurred during Iain Duncan Smith's first six months as leader of the Conservative Party.
His frontbench spokesman Quentin Davies took some senior Tory backbenchers by surprise recently when he announced the effective end of Westminster's bipartisan policy over the conduct of the peace process in Northern Ireland. Had he been correct in doing so? Mr Duncan Smith explains that Mr Davies "didn't actually announce the end in terms of specifics like the Belfast Agreement, where we had agreed in principle with what everybody was wanting to achieve... What he has essentially announced the end of is the government assuming automatically that the opposition will go along with them on these things." These things include the planned amnesty for paramilitary fugitives, or OTRs (On The Runs), and the office facilities and allowances for Sinn Féin MPs "rammed through" the House of Commons in face of ferocious Conservative and unionist complaint. Yet bipartisanship has always allowed the opposition party freedom to oppose the government of the day on specific issues - Labour on the PTA, the Conservatives in the last parliament on prisoner releases. So is this really a new departure?
The Conservative leader says there clearly has been a change, in that Conservatives are more critical of a Blair government they claim has "departed from consensus" and changed the rules of behaviour over Northern Ireland policy. Moreover "it is a change in substance," confirms Mr Duncan Smith. "We find ourselves at loggerheads with them over a lot of what they're doing at the moment." The policy remains bipartisan "on the things we believed they were operating on after consultation." However, the key point "is that they have departed from that. It's not us. They have broken this process."
He explains: "The Sinn Féin business was a classic example of the government just simply dismissing every opinion in the House, including that of the unionists, including that of a leader [David Trimble\] who is critical to the whole process. They dismissed it all. So, my point is the government has departed. They have behaved arrogantly and without any sensitivity whatsoever."
Mention of Mr Trimble suggests an obvious point. He and his Ulster Unionist colleagues are part of this process and continue to sit in the power-sharing executive. How can the Conservative leader claim to be supporting Mr Trimble when his analysis at times seems more closely to resemble that of Mr Trimble's anti-agreement critics? Mr Duncan Smith allows this is one possible interpretation but maintains: "If there is a difference, I haven't been able to spot it." The Conservatives back Mr Trimble in his continuing attempt "to make sure the agreement is delivered on". But "IDS" hasn't heard the UUP leader be other than critical of the Blair government over the amnesty proposal and its "almost open-ended position for Sinn Féin/IRA" on weapons decommissioning.
"No," he asserts: "There isn't a difference between us. What we are doing is backing him because we think the important point here is that the government is shoddy in this, that they have disregarded a critical component of the peace process, which is the Unionist Party, and that of their leader. They have put him in an invidious position. They have by their concessions to Sinn Féin/IRA, which frankly are as close to appeasement in some cases as is possible to imagine... they have themselves now placed him and his party in terrible difficulty.
"Now, there at the same time they expected him [Mr Trimble\] to help deliver on the agreement, it's now as if they say 'it doesn't really matter what he does because he can't do anything else, so we don't have to bother with him any more'. And that seems to characterise their position with him. So we're trying to support him in saying to the government you can't just ride roughshod over these people, all the decent people who have attempted to achieve peace through negotiation and discussion, through the democratic process."
Does he perhaps think Mr Trimble is too soft with the Prime Minister? If so, he's not telling: "How he behaves with the Prime Minister is clearly a matter for himself. I wouldn't seek to give advice to another party leader, and if I did, it would certainly be done in private." Straight question, then, for himself.
DOES he, as leader of the Conservative Party think Sinn Féin fit to be partners in the government of Northern Ireland? There is no apparent hesitation: "If they ante-up to their agreements, as signed, on Good Friday [1998\]. If they ante-up to those, and deliver on them, then the answer is yes." The problem is they have not delivered: "Here is a party that signed up to a decommissioning process that should be over by now. And it's hardly begun."
So, what's Mr Duncan Smith's solution to that? "My answer is we have deadlines and we have an agreement. I asked the question: what's the purpose of signing an agreement if it was only meant to be applied to one group in total, not the others? It seems to me here is David Trimble, who has acted in good faith, who has had to deliver with obvious difficulty in the unionist camp. He's had to try and deliver them, and see it through, because he felt it was in the best interests of Northern Ireland - and I think that characterises a good politician - only to find the other side of the fence has got a different deal going."
What then does he say to other unionists who fear the process is leading them inevitably toward a united Ireland? As befits a Conservative and unionist, Mr Duncan Smith first affirms Northern Ireland's "incredibly viable and important part to play in the union of the United Kingdom". As for the feared march to unity: "I would not have at the time seen the Good Friday Agreement, as my party did, as acceptable if we felt that was exactly what was happening." But what concerns him now "is what's going on beyond the agreement". It seems necessary to press this to establish precisely what Conservative "support" for the agreement now amounts to. Just last week in the Commons, in a debate about Crown symbols in the courts, his spokesman Mr Davies accused Ministers of seeking "to erode by stealth" Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. Does Mr Duncan Smith really think that is the underlying purpose and disposition of the Blair government? It is at this point the extent of the breakdown in the British political consensus over Northern Ireland becomes clear. Of Mr Davies' charge, he says: "I think his statement on that matter is right. I think that is all we can do because we're not privy to what they think any more. This is the whole point. Bipartisanship is a two-way process. It's not with them [Labour\]. So all we can do is add up what is happening in front of us and see where the dots take you. And the dots take you in, as Quentin says, the beginnings of what is a clear direction. It appears as though the government is heading in that direction. Whether they know it or not, that is for them.
"All we can assume is a government does something because it wants to, not because it did it in a fit of absent-mindedness. It's clear that what Quentin is saying is the dots tend to run towards a particular goal. Now, if that is their goal, what we're saying is 'say it. Cause if it's not, and you don't want that, then in that case you're doing what you don't want to do. So either you're deceiving yourselves or you're deceiving the rest of us'."
Tomorrow: Iain Duncan Smith on Tony Blair, the euro and the
war on terror